Welcome to Echoing the Sound. You'll find that quite a few things have changed here since the last iteration of the board so be sure to check out the FAQ. This is a completely fresh start - You'll need to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed (and look for the registration email in your spam folder). To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And actually, the 90s Sense and Sensibility is the only Austen adaptation I've ever seen, so no, I haven't seen that Pride and Prejudice adaptation yet, but I hear it's good. That said, is that scene in the book at all? I swear I don't remember anything like that. Not saying it doesn't look like a good movie, I'm just trying to figure out if it's completely added or if my memory is just totally shot. I re-read all of Austen's stuff almost two years ago, so I feel like it's pretty fresh in my memory. Have you seen the Kiera Knightly one? If so, do you have a preference between the two?

No, the swimming in the pond scene isn’t in the book (an example of my saying that it occasionally strays from the book, although not too much); in the book, Darcy does suddenly appear at Pemberley while Elizabeth is touring it with her Aunt and Uncle, but not half-dressed and hunky like Colin Firth hubba-hubba lol. In Austen’s day, Darcy probably had a powdered wig bleh. Anyway, I’ve seen *several* film adaptations of P&P and the BBC Colin Firth one is my favorite, I HIGHLY recommend it.

Scholars are fairly certain that Austen’s Pemberley is really Chatsworth:

lol, the funny thing is that, as tame as it is, I thought to myself, wow, this scene strikes me as a bit more openly sexual/erotic than you typically encounter in austen, which is why i was sure i'd have remembered it if it was in the book. i'm guessing the producers thought it would help to spice the movie up just a tiny bit. lol.

i kind of like the way sexuality is so submerged in her books, and yet you still sense that it's there in all the characters without it ever being stated openly. there'll be some scene where they're just walking together, but she writes it like it's the most ecstatic thing ever. or i remember a part in, i think northanger abbey(?), where the dude helps her into the carriage and she gets all flustered and it says something like "he had placed her there WITH HIS VERY HANDS." it's not only that i find that stuff kind of funny and charming, but also i can't help admiring the talent it requires as a writer. it's the most successful and impressive demonstration of a person indirectly writing about sexuality that i can think of. it's probably a contributing factor into why she was so popular.

Yes, absolutely. I always try to stress this to people who are hesitant about getting into her, people who have a vague impression of Austen being some stuffy, boring oldtimey writer. I always emphasize how fun and comedic her books can be.

Yes, absolutely. I always try to stress this to people who are hesitant about getting into her, people who have a vague impression of Austen being some stuffy, boring oldtimey writer. I always emphasize how fun and comedic her books can be.

first time i saw that i was so fucking irritated, lol. those assholes try to ruin everything.

What the hell?? That whole article is irritating to me, even the English Prof’s approach to it. She knows full well that most colleges don’t have a Regency period specialization so they group those authors and poets from Regency as “pre Victorian” for lack of a better way to offer them in academia but also because Victorian was INFORMED by Regency and Romanticism. She’s nitpicking, and so am I. Not that Idiot Yiannopoulos knows any of this. Anyway, this idea that Austen was a staunch feminist amuses me; I did a lengthy research essay in college viewing Elizabeth in P&P from the feminist perspective and the academic research was about 50/50.(Full disclosure: I actually enjoy reading academic criticism of Austen more than reading Austen.) Elizabeth knew she needed a husband to survive and she held out for the BEST ONE; Darcy is RICH and POWERFUL with a giant MANSION. But her heroines do express the desire for the same education and esteem that men possess, so there is that aspect of "feminism" (which of course didn't exist at the time, but the very fact that Austen was an AUTHOR yet she had to hide in her room so nobody would come rip up her novels shows what she was up against; it wasn't about hot or not). Austen wrote about the realities of that era. Mary Wollstonecraft was a total babe, arguing against smarmy romantic heroism. Then her daughter, Mary, married that romantic poet SHELLEY ... comparing the works of the two Marys to Austen is an interesting study.

Edit: Ugh I hereby resolve that I will never again attempt to read or compose anything of substance via my iPhone 7+. STILL TOO SMALL for this purpose.

What the hell?? That whole article is irritating to me, even the English Prof’s approach to it. She knows full well that most colleges don’t have a Regency period specialization so they group those authors and poets from Regency as “pre Victorian” for lack of a better way to offer them in academia but also because Victorian was INFORMED by Regency and Romanticism. She’s nitpicking, and so am I. Not that Idiot Yiannopoulos knows any of this. Anyway, this idea that Austen was a staunch feminist amuses me; I did a lengthy research essay in college viewing Elizabeth in P&P from the feminist perspective and the academic research was about 50/50.(Full disclosure: I actually enjoy reading academic criticism of Austen more than reading Austen.) Elizabeth knew she needed a husband to survive and she held out for the BEST ONE; Darcy is RICH and POWERFUL with a giant MANSION. But her heroines do express the desire for the same education and esteem that men possess, so there is that aspect of "feminism" (which of course didn't exist at the time, but the very fact that Austen was an AUTHOR yet she had to hide in her room so nobody would come rip up her novels shows what she was up against; it wasn't about hot or not). Austen wrote about the realities of that era. Mary Wollstonecraft was a total babe, arguing against smarmy romantic heroism. Then her daughter, Mary, married that romantic poet SHELLEY ... comparing the works of the two Marys to Austen is an interesting study.

Edit: Ugh I hereby resolve that I will never again attempt to read or compose anything of substance via my iPhone 7+. STILL TOO SMALL for this purpose.

True, I don't think you can call Austen a straight-up feminist. That strikes me as a little anachronistic. I suppose Vindication of the Rights of Women was already out by the time Austen was writing, but I'm not aware of her interacting with those ideas, and it doesn't seem to appear in her work. And anyway, even though Wollstonecraft is incredibly awesome, she's more like proto-feminism, simply because feminism as an organized movement and philosophy was not really up and running at that point.

But still, it's totally insane for alt-right dudes to try and claim Austen. Her work is not about celebrating patriarchal social structures, or idealizing antiquated notions of feminine purity/submission, or anything else these fucking idiots love to fantasize about. The conflict of her stories often boils down to "individuals vs. their society," so it makes no fucking sense to view the depictions of early 1800s England in a nostalgic or positive light. Austen's all about showing how the lives of both men and women are constrained by social conventions, how personal happiness is at odds with the cultural demands and expectations of society. It's not some virtuous Edenic vision for the world. She shows the how women try to navigate within their depressing limitations. Her characters make do with the conditions they were born in to because it's all they have, and so they do what they can to carve out some happiness for themselves whenever possible. Women's dependence upon men is written about because that was the reality of the time period, not because Austen was trying to show how wonderful it is to live under a gendered hierarchy.

True, I don't think you can call Austen a straight-up feminist. That strikes me as a little anachronistic. I suppose Vindication of the Rights of Women was already out by the time Austen was writing, but I'm not aware of her interacting with those ideas, and it doesn't seem to appear in her work. And anyway, even though Wollstonecraft is incredibly awesome, she's more like proto-feminism, simply because feminism as an organized movement and philosophy was not really up and running at that point.

But still, it's totally insane for alt-right dudes to try and claim Austen. Her work is not about celebrating patriarchal social structures, or idealizing antiquated notions of feminine purity/submission, or anything else these fucking idiots love to fantasize about. The conflict of her stories often boils down to "individuals vs. their society," so it makes no fucking sense to view the depictions of early 1800s England in a nostalgic or positive light. Austen's all about showing how the lives of both men and women are constrained by social conventions, how personal happiness is at odds with the cultural demands and expectations of society. It's not some virtuous Edenic vision for the world. She shows the how women try to navigate within their depressing limitations. Her characters make do with the conditions they were born in to because it's all they have, and so they do what they can to carve out some happiness for themselves whenever possible. Women's dependence upon men is written about because that was the reality of the time period, not because Austen was trying to show how wonderful it is to live under a gendered hierarchy.

I just finished All the Ugly and Wonderful Things and I am just not sure how I feel about that AT ALL.

Ohh, I've read about this book and I thought it sounded really...odd. I'm an open minded person who can roll with books and movies about things that are uncomfortable or unconventional or taboo, but still, this just sounded really, really questionable. But of course, I haven't read it.

Just finished 32 Fangs to finish up David Wellingtons Vampire series. I've probably said this before but he does a good job in the Genre. Picked up Post Office at the same time but i have to limit my Bukowski intake to small doses. Today grabbed Skinny Dip by Hiaasen, the guy writes the most absurdly funny shit.

Same here, Bukowski has always struck me as a little one-note. That said, Post Office is my favorite thing of his, hands down.

First novel of his I picked up. I've read compilations, poems, etc. I find myself usually more interested in the outlying writings of older writers such as him, loosely speaking. I like to pick out the person more so than the more mainstream works.

Does anyone have Kindle Unlimited? It talks about unlimited Audiobooks...I have an audible account so this sounds like it'd be cheaper than that. What's the downside to them getting less money from me for books that I don't care to own anyway.